zaat

Reading the paper I have a repeating puzzlement, wondering if they are trolling or sincere. For example, about the benefits of delaying consumption to happiness: ... For example, when asked to choose a snack from an array that included apples, bananas, paprika-flavored crisps, and Snickers bars, people overwhelmingly selected an unhealthy snack if it was to be consumed immediately, but drifted toward the healthier options when selecting a snack to be consumed the following week (Read & van Leeuwen, 1998). Because the present seems to be viewed under an emotional magnifying glass, people gave in to the temptation of salty, sweet satiation when it was immediately available, but when such satiation receded into the future, this temptation no longer loomed large, freeing people to select more virtuous options—and perhaps to appreciate the abstract health benefits of a banana at least as much as the more concrete deliciousness of nutty, chocolaty nougat. ...

I would say that delaying the pleasure in this case distances the pleasure anticipation from the decision, just like deciding to start going to the gym next week is much easier decision to do then deciding to start right now. Appreciation of the health benefits of next week's banana combined with the lesser, mediocre pleasure that will be felt eating it, might be better for the individual health then having that Savoy truffle right now, but no, the banana will never bring the same pleasure or happiness. Never.

(link to the full version easily found in google: https://dunn.psych.ubc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/1-s2-0-...)

I just checked my plan yesterday, I pay 0.13 Eur, summer and winter. I can commit to my provider for a year and lower it to 0.11, but with slightly higher fixed monthly cost (which is about 50 eur, regardless of consumption). With this prices you less likely to think about the efficiency of fans - it will probably will years to return the cost of fan replacement.

I pay 0.45 Euro for public car charging, returning the cost of installing a charger at my (rented) house will probably take 2 years.

Well, you know what's taste good and what's not - for you. You are the only judge for your own experience, and taste is an experience of the brain, not something out there. Nevertheless, most people do prefer hot meals, and there's scientifically explanation for that.

Sparkling water (8-10C is the recommendation on the bottle in my hand). Bread (fresh from the oven, toast). Chicken Soup. And leaving aside examples, many things do taste better when they are hotter then 25, the heat helps more particles reach the olfactory receptors in your nose.

How much do you pay for kWh?

sandeepkd is an idea thief. Also, he is short guy but walks with high shoes so people will think he is tall.

It gets to the point where what you do is the main question while payment is barely a minor concern way earlier than that point, at least in my experience. You don't need to be in the top AI research tier for that.

What a wonderful times we live in.

Back in my day Joe Blow wouldn't try anything as risky as a Twitter prompt, simply clicking an image link published within a message in some random forum and will scorch his pure soul with a goatsie. You don't want to google it, but I'm preety sure you can discuss it safely with ChatGPT.

You can type in whatever sequence of keys you want, but Amazon preety much created and shaped that Cloud thing, if you ever heard of it. And that's just one of their side-projects.

There are better ways to stand for my man Elon.

The point isn't that a humanoid robot walking is less efficient than a human walking, is that moving on a wheel is not the same thing as walking. For example, using wheels is not only less efficient it is barely usable for climbing rocks, going up the stairs and many other surfaces that makes the comparison irrelevant.

You could say that a robotic gun is much more efficient than a human in killing, that's another easy easy comparison of different tasks where robots win, but it totally miss the point.

Yes, but walking and moving on wheels is oranges and apples. It would be a relevant comparison if a robot with a movement mechanism based on two feet was more efficient than a human.

If you live in most cities in Italy you have to take a huge hit to your ability to get places (in a reasonable timeframe or at all) if you must do it with a car.

That's a strange comparison. Wheels are incredibly limited in the type of surfaces they can be used on.

How is that any different from the pre-llm days, when Jim was using stackoverflow to build the largest crypto exchange in the world? Where's stackoverflow accountability?

At least for me, the answer is that despite the mistakes and the sheer annoyance the prose causes me, they are unbelievably useful. I accomplished multiple major achievements in the last two years that most probably wouldn't be possible at all, surely not within that timeframe.

The idea is that by the time you will have time and remember the clothes might be smelly and wrinkled. The issue is with the genius product manager that decided the washing machine should have the most annoying beep possible, repeating every minute whether you like it or not, until turned off. Luckily, some manufacturers do employ better product manager.

Thank you for your work.

You have an answer on your page regarding "Should I pick 26B-A4B or 31B?", but can you please clarify if, assuming 24GB vRAM, I should pick a full precision smaller model or 4 bit larger model?

Just to make sure, opkssh supports OpenID for sftp as well?

One can still hold that it's a better link, it's a matter of preference. Anyways, if you scroll the original article to the very end it does contain an impressive set of photos. It is beautiful.

I can't find any viable alternative. Keyboard is much faster than those click and release interfaces. Keyboards also have repeat keys, when you press a character for a long time you can actually press and depress the shift key and see the change in the line of characters input. This is extremely useful feature in games, graphic design software and other applications.

Generation of keystroke based on the up event, beside been incompatible with repeating keys for long strokes, will slow down typing significantly, as it requires tracking timing pressing keys for longer duration. I'm pretty sure that this isn't only effect of me being used to track keypress timing on the way down, but an unavoidable result of the duration of the action.

Waiting for up event on contemporary GUI, when the contempt UI is a sluggish fit-to-nothing dirty touchscreen in a public kiosk is sensible. When you know an interface will yield more errors than intended input it is only sensible to assume that any input is a mistake unless the user is making an effort to validate it.

Do you use the community edition or SaaS?

While I didn't find the joke funny, it does thematically match the piece - the hacker who supposedly see the possibility to get free internet as a viable opportunity. Later in the piece the author does distance himself from that image, revealing the tone in the opening was merely a stylistic choice, a writer's device, as clearly he is not the kind of a person who will in practice exploit the airline systems.

Assuming you are a man, I'm not sure you would say the same thing if the arbitrary lingual fact was opposite, and on your door it would be written in bold chairwoman, or if you were been introduced as a policewoman.

I'm not sure I'm for changing the language all over, but I don't think dismissing issues that disturb a group that you don't belong to is a manner that fits a gentleman.

The characterization of the scientific method as proposing hypotheses and then putting them to test was given by a philosopher in the previous century. While the hypotheses that this is the character of the scientific method is still very common, it was refuted long ago, both by observations and by logic reasoning.

We agree here, but that isn't how religion solves the problem. Religious laws are also enforced by threats in the afterlife and violence in the present life, not merely by reason, so they do not need to solve the is-ought problem like secular laws do. Of course, religious law has other problems.

You are mixing law with moral/ethics. Secular law doesn't have is-ought problem, it is enforced by the state law enforcement forces. Pressure to abide to the laws doesn't entail or justify their morality.

I agree completely, hence why it is impossible to derive rights that are logically justified without an appeal to God. The comment I was replying to claimed there were logically justified rights which have to follow from logically justified moral theories unless they are decreed from beyond reason, and since the latter is a category error, so is the former.

It wasn't. It was arguing for inherent rights. The claim for inherent rights can be justified. It can't be justified by logic just like it cannot be proved mathematically. But it can be justified ethically using reason.

We seem to disagree on the definition of natural rights. For a right to be natural you require that it will be granted by God or that it will be based on human nature, and by human nature you mean to say that it is a direct product of the evolution biology that have created our species. While I would grant you that it's a definition that you can find in many philosophers, following Moore, but in the current context I think that the natural/artificial distinction isn't useful for defining natural rights.

I would argue that this definition is very narrow and limiting, it introduce weird dependency on our current scientific knowledge, and isn't very useful. For instance, when Hobbes proposed the social contract theory he was discussing natural rights but today we know that his natural science knowledge was incorrect and therefore he was actually describing artificial rights. To me this makes no sense. Instead, I will propose, that rights that are derived by reason, that are universal, and that do not depend on a specific state law or the social norms of a specific society are natural rights. They are natural in the sense that they are not dependent on any state or law but are inherent. Those rights are not granted by god, and they are not artificial law propositions. They are based on universal principals of reason and the reality of human existence.

This view and this definition of natural rights is not my invention. It's reflected in the language of the universal declaration of human rights - which recognizes a set of universal rights. The declaration isn't a legal document that legislate a binding law. It recognize rights that are not (let's hope, are not yet) generally accepted by all nations. Nevertheless those rights are not based on God or born by the act of composing and publishing the declaration, those are natural rights. They are natural despite being in opposition to humans natural behavior, despite their consistent violation. It is because those rights are natural that they can serve as basis and justification for international law and justice.

Rawls theory of rights is universal, it isn't about specific social norms, it discuss human society in principle. One might say that his ethics are based on theory of the human nature.

Natural rights do really require theism to be truly natural, ie, independent of morality and society. Theism avoids the is-ought problem by forgoing the ought, with theism natural law can simply be, and whether you decide you ought to abide them is no longer so important.

Hume's original text describing the is-ought problem is specifically targeting justification of ethics on god. Laws that no one is ought to abide by are no laws but nonsense.

Is murder immoral because god hate murder, or do god hate murder because it is immoral?

At the end of the day, secular natural rights is an intuitive and appealing but ungrounded position that cannot be logically justified

Many will argue that no moral theory can be logically justified, and that the search for logical justification is category error

Rights is well developed subject in modern ethics, and it doesn't require God or morality in the sense of "Doing X is bad and therefore immoral". But any discussion of rights is discussion of moral theory.

Modern ethical philosophers have developed ethic theories that propose secular basis for universal rights, moral theory that doesn't rely on God (Rawls is a famous example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Theory_of_Justice)

God is of very little help (here), as pointed by Plato/Socrates in the Uthyphro dilemma. The naturalistic fallacy is not limited to natural rights, as Hume's is-ought is applicable to legal rights just the same - you can't logically deduce from the fact that there are laws that mandate rights a conclusion that one ought to abide by them.

Natural or universal rights does not require theism. Robert Nozick is famous proponent of the secular based position that property is a natural right.

Natural and legal rights are well established terms that are being used, discussed and evaluated since ancient times. The term natural right precede our discovery of evolution by 2 millennia. Whether the right to property is natural right or not is a separate point and debatable.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_rights_and_legal_right... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_property